MY TAKE ON LIFE
__________________
We are conceived and we are born. From then on, we are on our own except for the presence of our parents.
Before we are 'born' nothing existed, it is (in truth), an assumption.
After
we are 'born' we are subjected to that which affects our senses (our
personal level of awareness). Nothing else matters. Later on, with
'maturity' (our natural development given the circumstances in which we
live) we develop, as a human animal an 'awareness of being aware'.
This, 'awareness of being aware' apparently, separates us from other
animals but this is pure conjecture since we cannot (at present)
understand anything else.
It is this 'awareness of being aware'
that, presumably, lends itself to our ability for 'high-tech', as we
might say. However, 'high-tech' is no more for humans than 'high-tech'
for other fauna or flora, given their 'lesser' or non-existent
'awareness of being aware', as I see it.
We exist only until our 'death'.
'Death'
is a function of living. We return to the 'dust/earth' from which we
were created, by whatever means, divine or otherwise.
Upon
'death', the universe does not exist for us, this is another
assumption. As Richard Bach has said: What the caterpillar calls
the end of the world the master calls a butterfly.
Whatever
'death' may be is a belief from (or of). We are surely not the same
after 'death' as when we were when we were conscious ('awareness of
being aware') of being 'alive'.
Therefore, there is nothing
before our birth and nothing after death; these things are assumed and
in our personal view of reality (of our awareness of our existence
after birth) are not relevant. We may, for convenience believe in data
before our birth but there is no data when we 'die' (unless we believe
in a form of 'hereafter' because no-one can communicate after death on
the same level of awareness as they were when they were 'alive.
Surely, what we become after our 'death' is not, as Richard Bach (for
example) says, the 'same' as we were when we were 'alive'?
After
'death' we are not conscious in the same way as we were before we
'died'. This cannot be possible on logical grounds (although I begged
to be informed otherwise). The fear of death that we have been 'told'
is a function of the 'living' not the 'dead', since we can have no
knowledge of 'death' until we arrive at its door and beyond.
I
cannot believe that there is any purpose in our 'living' or indeed
'dying'. What could that purpose possibly be? The answer would be
purely, personally, speculative.
Our 'purpose/s' (in the sense
of a purpose for the universe) are purely personal since we are
individuals, the process of sexual reproduction in the human animal.
The grouping of anything into separate categories is purely a human
animal 'thing' and not one with nature, which assures us of
individualism, flora or fauna. Life is a continuum, analogue not
digital.
Our only individual 'purpose', is to survive. We do
this by whatever means are possible to us. If beliefs (whatever they
may be) are part of our personal survival, then so be. But since
beliefs (whatever they may be) are personal, then, in my view, they
should be contained in that person and not pandered to the public
(other flora and fauna) as a truism. Therein lies a control of others
that is anathema to what we call Nature.
Yes, religion is
important to a great number of people. Collecting data is as important
to the human animal as collecting nuts for winter survival is for some
creatures. Like everything else, data changes and so must everything
else, otherwise there is no dynamism in the universe. But we have to
remember that when religions first evolved, the human animals at the
time were living n a vastly different earth and with cosmic events that
we do not see now but are embedded in their art and literature at the
time.
If we can't define religion, then we must leave that
business alone and move forwards in the continuum and not remain
static. The struggle for 'Truth' in the Platonic sense is the dynamism
of life. There is no Truth, only truths. One man's 'truth' is another
man's falsehood. Where do we go from here?
As I have said, so
many times, religion may be about explaining the world in a sense that
makes sense but it has been used (like so many other things) to control
others. That is the very large axe that I have to grind.
As far
as mathematics is concerned, it is very clever (in simplistic mode) but
it can NEVER explain the world of nature. Mathematics may describe
something but it can never tell us what it is. What it is, can
only belong to the individual's sensual apparatus at a given time,
place and circumstance. This, in my view, is the essence of life itself.
I do not believe that life is that complicated. It is created to be so by the human animal.
If I haven't sent it before, I share this with you. It was written (by myself) in the early 1970's:
TIME
Time saw them in a senseless world,
Mindful children made into sages,
Creeping through a history of ages.
Time saw them stop and listen,
To the sounds that filled the air,
It saw them struggle against the earth
that put them there.
Time saw them grow and nurture,
Fighting all against one and one against all,
Where symbols won.
And Time saw them pass,
Gone into the aeons of its ceaseless self;
Where life grew dusty on some hidden shelf.
There
is, however, with all this seriousness, an element (scientific and
general) of human life that we sometimes fail to attune ourselves to
and that is humour. I am sure that this is a product of other animals
as well as humans. However, it would appear that humans have developed
this to a greater degree (although I could be questioned upon this).
Humour
is, or should be, a major factor in our survival. Without humour, our
survival is limited. Humour is multi-functional for our survival.
Laughing (requiring over two hundred muscles in the face, as I
understand it) breaks the bounds of our depressions and a lot of other
ailments over which we have little control. Laughter seems to break the
spells of depression that we all feel.
Real humour has no bounds
within the human genome. The sad fact is that this is also trying to be
limited by those who find no humour within their own lives. These are
the so-called 'political correct' who are sad individuals who lack any
human motivation or productivity to a common end.
'Entertainment'
as purveyed is not humour or anything worthwhile for human survival. We
laugh because something is, to us, what we perceive as 'funny'. It is
funny because it is what happens in life as far as our perceptions and
experiences, allow. Real humour is universal because it relates to real
happenings that we relate to as individuals. Real humour relates to
those foibles of nature that occur because we are human, not otherwise.
As someone says, things lose a lot in translation (!).
The secret of a long and happy life, in my view, at least, is to 'see the funny side' as they say.
Humans
have and have not, a great deal of qualities that concern their
survival and humour is one of them. What we cannot see, we miss. What
we cannot laugh at, we miss.
I am sorry that you have lost the
Scottish friend you wrote to. I enjoyed your letter that you sent me
that you had written to him. You do have a sense of humour that is
applaudable.
Life, as most people make it, is too serious. And
yes, responsibilities are serious, that, I believe is the nature of
things. But without a sense of humour, these are nothing. Evie and I
survive together because we have a great deal of humour between us.
We've both been through horrific times (as far as we are concerned) but
that is the past. The future is now and what we do to achieve that.
Return
to CONTENTS page